I indeed find it interesting that mainstream Christians today – both Catholic and Protestant – seem to have wholeheartedly adopted the mindset of Cultural Marxists, as Gobry does in his latest article by insisting that race is a “social construct”. The one issue that Christians have not yet given into the Cultural Marxists is gay marriage, but this is only matter of time and, as I’ll show, Gobry’s very “reasoning” paves the way for gay marriage.

Gobry, in his latest, argues that gay marriage is not inevitable because tokens of progress have been wrong in the past. His bogeymen of false tokens of past progress are the concept of race and eugenics (with, of course, the obligatory reference to Margaret Sanger). He writes:

“As people on the left of the left, who usually care more about the history of ideas than milquetoast progressives, never tire of pointing out (and rightly), race is a social construct…. [Race] is an idea that has a very specific history, whose birth can be dated, which came to dominate the cultural worldview, and thence changed law and behavior. In other words, it was a socio-cultural revolution.”

At least Gobry is honest about siding with the far left, although he doesn’t correctly identify its origins. (One of the first Marxists to champion the idea of race as a “social construct” was Franz Boas, who recently has recently been proven to be a fraud. Marxist Stephen Jay Gould has also been shown to be a fraud.)

Gobry seems to think that somehow the science of race is wrong since it’s a product of the Enlightenment, or, more specifically, the Scientific Revolution:

This reasoning, however, is wrong on a number of counts.

First, race in and of itself is not a modern concept. As Vincent Sarich & Frank Miele point out in the “Ancient Concept of Race,” the Ancient Greeks, Romans, Chinese, and later Muslims all had concepts of race.

What is different about the modern concept of race is that it is more scientific. And this is supposed to discredit it? Modern genetics is also a product of this “socio-cultural revolution,” so it should also be discredited? Maybe Gobry thinks so, since genetics overwhelmingly proves the biological reality of race:

Like all good Marxist Christians today, Gobry quotes Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female, but all are one in Christ Jesus.” I’m not very religious nor am I an expert on Biblical exegesis, but scholars have told me that the traditional interpretation of this passage is one of a heavenly allegory but the more recent Marxist interpretation is that on Earth race and gender aren’t real but are “social constructs”. Gobry obviously sides with the later interpretation.

Which undermines Gobry’s very support of traditional marriage. For, if gender – like race – is but a social construct, then why should any credence be given to traditional marriage grounded in a biological notion of reproduction (as the Latin verb maritare suggests by meaning both to marry and impregnate). If gender is but a social construct, then participants in marriage should not be be discriminated against by gender.

Such deductions, however, may be beyond the intellectual powers of grandstanders like Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry.

Updates:

Michael B Dougherty seems to agree with the article because of something someone might have once said about his ancestors 100 years ago. Newsflash, Michael, the Irish genetically cluster with Europeans and and there were never anti-miscegenation laws against the Irish.

A recent genetics ancestry survey by 23andme found that White Americans (European Americans) on average are: “98.6 percent European, 0.19 percent African and 0.18 percent Native American.” Wow, that’s pretty white. I’ll come back to that in a minute.

The survey also found that Latinos are “18 percent Native American, 65.1 percent European and 6.2 percent African.” There might be a little self-selection here, resulting from testing more upper-class Hispanics, who tend to be more white. For instance, Rubén Lisker found the average admixture of a lower-income mestizos in Mexico City to be: 59% Amerindian,
34% European, and 6% black.

Back to European Americans and their utter whiteness. The 98.6% figure, mind you, is an average. According to other studies, more than 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and the 5% who do seem to have very little, so it is probably this 5% of White Americans who might be adding the 1.4% admixture into the average.

Let that sink in: 95% of White Americans have no African or Amerindian ancestry and those who do seem to have very little. Wow.

First, the USA historically has not been a hotbed of miscegenation as Cultural Marxists like to tell us. Your eyes and common sense should tell you that if there were widespread miscegenation, there would be hardly any white Americans but rather large mestizo/mulatto-like populations such as one finds in many Latin American countries (and even there, small white upper classes still exist).

Second, the people in USA tended to cross the color line in only one direction: white —> black. Mulatto people would identify as black and then reintegrate into the black gene pool.

Which brings us to another question, why do mulattoes almost always identify as black?

The standard Cultural Marxist answer to this question is because of culture, such as the one-drop rule. But the reality of the situation belies this half-truth.

The most straightforward answer is what Oxford zoologist Jonathan Kingdon suggested in 1996: black looks are dominant while other looks are recessive. Observation seems to bear this out. A person with only 1/16th black ancestry will still often have visible black characteristics, whereas a white person with 1/16th Japanese ancestry would probably pass for 100% white.

In other words, the reason why most mulattoes identify as black is at least in part biological. Perhaps the white phenotype really is recessive and is easily diminished.

Case in point. Professor of anthropology Robert Wald Sussman (who recently defamed Jared Taylor) published a hit piece in this week in Newsweek, “There Is No Such Thing as Race” (also reprinted at Raw Story), which is an excerpt from Sussman’s new book on why race is not real. The target of the piece is race, which is not hard to miss, since it’s quite repetitive. In fact, it’s not really an argument at all but just a broken record. Sussman early on says his book has not “dwelt upon all of the scientific information that has been gathered” by scientists et al. about race, and then goes on to discuss Hitler, Medieval injustices against Jews, more Hitler, etc. It’s funny that he cites Franz Boas as a savior of sorts, even though Boas has been thoroughly repudiated as a fraud. He also engages in numerous logical fallacies, such as the one that since race is clinal it cannot exist (race is not always clinal (e.g. think oceans or mountain ranges) and many things are clinal and still exist).

Back to the repetitiveness. In my quick reading of the short essay I counted at least 20 variations of the phrase “race does not exist,” often times back to back with another variation of the claim. Here are samples:

- “race” is not a biological reality

– racial structure is not based on reality

– no biological reality to human race

– myth of race

– racist fallacies

– biological race in humans is nonexistent

– hypothetical “races”

– there are no races

– biological races do not exist

– races do not exist as a biological reality

– race is not a part of our biology

etc

I think you get the point. When I began to focus on how repetitive the excerpt is, it dawned upon me that this is no “essay” but it is a religious catechism for New Creationism, the target audience being the believers (Cultural Marxists), with the hope of picking up a few new converts. The obvious desperation of the piece leaves two possibilities. Either the race-denying New Creationists are on their last legs, or soon we’ll have full-blown Idiocracy.

A stir was recently caused when liberal Cardinal Walter Kasper allegedly told a reporter that the Vatican should not really care what Africans think on theology, since Africans aren’t very enlightened, which Kasper later denied saying. Of course, this comment is straightforwardly true. The average IQ of Sub-Sahara Africans is quite low (65 – 75) and the cause is most likely genetic. Nonetheless, this statement has caused all the pointing-and-stuttering indignation from “conservative” American Catholics, who seem to think that Africa is on the cutting edge of civilization. Just look at the indignation from the Twitter feed of First Thing‘s Matthew Schmitz, who at least is consoled that African Catholics will soon outnumber European Catholics. He looks forward to an African Church that someday will be lorded over by some African witch doctor.

As I and others have noted previously, two things are taking place right now with Christianity: (1) Inside the West, Christianity is becoming indistinguishable from Cultural Marxism (think of Christian leaders’ fanatical support of mass immigration and non-white adoption); (2) outside the West, Christianity is becoming a non-Western religion, mostly notably among the blacks of Africa and the Mestizos and Amerindians of Latin America. For white Christians, what is the way out of this dilemma?

The question whether Jews are natural race realists might seem odd to some considering that Jews, since the 1950s, have been at the forefront of promoting the “race is a social construct” myth. In fact, Jews today, following the lead of people like Franz Boas and Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu), have almost single-handedly transformed the social sciences away from Darwinian models toward black-slatist / race-does-not-exist models.

But things were not always this way. Prior to WWII, Jews (and by ‘Jews’ I mean mostly Ashkenazis) were some of the most adamant race realists. Mitchell B. Hart’s 2011 book by Brandeis University Press, Jews and Race: Writings on Identity and Difference, 1880 – 1940 (reviewed here), shows that Jews, prior to WWII, overwhelmingly believed in the reality and importance of racial differences. Even Franz Boas, who later would promote the “race is a social construct” myth, early on believed in the hardwired reality of racial differences.

So what happened? In short, WWII happened, whereafter Jews decided race realism was bad for Jews and began to promote race denialism. Israel Ehrenberg (aka Ashley Montagu) and others even muscled the United Nations into declaring that race isn’t biologically real.

But things aren’t so simple. Although Jews today prescribe race denialism for the West, in Israel they are the ultimate race realists and ethno-nationalists. For instance, not only do Israelis deport and sterilize African immigrants, but they also practice eugenics (in the form of genetic testing of potential mates to avoid hereditary disease). And such a double-standard is the norm among American academics, where anthropologists like Jonathan Marks & Alan Goodman stir up lynch mobs against goys (such as Nicholas Wade) who argue for the general truth of human biodiversity, but they themselves are rather silent on Israel.

Although the acknowledgement of this double-standard a decade ago was limited to the fringes, awareness is becoming more mainstream. For instance, Ann Coulter recently wrote a syndicated op-ed criticizing the casino tycoon Sheldon Adelson for supporting tough immigration laws for Israel but open-borders and amnesty for the USA. And there are hundreds of similar blog posts floating around the web. Twitter is awash with tweets about Israeli ethno-nationalism. Even this week there was a protest in Israel against African immigration, where the Israelis were chanting, “Niggers, go home!,” which gained a lot of attention on Twitter.

My guess is that Jews naturally believe in HBD and naturally are very ethnocentric, but are terrified at the idea of white gentiles believing in HBD and being ethnocentric. But what is important here is the “natural inclination”. If race realism is the natural inclination of Ashkenazis and post-WWII race denialism an aberration, will Jews come back around? Will the adamant ethno-nationalism of Israel force them to once again publicly acknowledge race realism?

Perhaps for some. Others might just go ahead and deny race realism for and denounce Israel. It’ll be interesting to see what happens.

For the past month or so, there has been much talk about the identitarian European Congress conference (organized by NPI and others) in Budapest, Hungary. The conference was to have many speakers (including Aleksandr Dugin) and was in part supported by members of the right-wing Jobbik Party in Hungary. Then the antifa groups (both from Hungary and elsewhere in Europe) got involved, putting pressure on the Hungarian government to close down the conference. The anti-free speech antifas got their way in shutting down the conference, even to the point where Jobbik party members are now denying involvement, although they had been in contact with Richard Spencer for months in organizing the event. Nonetheless, although the formal conference was shut down (and some people said they weren’t coming), Richard Spencer decided to go ahead and hold an informal private meeting. (Here’s a video from Sept. 29 of Richard Spencer explaining that although the government was shutting down the conference, an informal private meeting would still take place.) Well, yesterday it seems that Richard Spencer and others were meeting in a bar and Richard Spencer was arrested by the Hungarian authorities. (Here’s a video of Richard Spencer right before his arrest.) I do not know the details …and have no idea whether Spencer has been released.

It’s ironically sad that various European authorities are so hell-bent on shutting down a pro-European conference. It’s symptomatic of the pathologically altruistic, ethnomasochistic malady infecting the West.